E340 
,64 G4 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0DDD5D7T15T 






-^ *••-• .-^ 



J * 













^•^^^r • 






^^u.^'i' 




V' ^'VL'. cv 




. NJ' 



/■\ ■••W^-- **'% -.IP-- /-\ ..m^".- *■ 



>0 

5^ 



lV°^ . 






■'-^0^ 
-•1°* 





















"^0^ 



^^ ** 









- «,'^'''^^ °o^^»' J''^\. '• "Wilis'*" «>^'^ VtOC}^*' -j.^ 

O, * , , o ,w ,» 

'■ X.^ -'Mi- %.^' • 











0' V^^TT^-'-y' '°^'- 







O^ ♦ . . ' ,0 




<& * • # i • •ft 









.^ 



* • • ' .U 



.-V 



f: .^ 



v-V 









,0^ .•'■"•• '^o 



v' .^ili;.'*, c;^ 



J- ^*-?!§^'. ■^^. .'^:^ .^r.^,'?.o:<- '^... .^' 






•y '^ 










°^ 



■^^^^,- ^0 



► ♦ „f(\ >^l^ 










<'> 



-h;^ -■",-- 






•^o-^ 

^•n^ 






i^. 



%.^^" 
.!i^"-. 



V 



v 






,^0 



-v-'^ . 



HON. WILLIAM A. GILBERT'S DSFEMIS. 



The Select Committee appointed by the resolution of the House •iihc Wi 
January to investigate certain cliarcje^ referred to in the pnr.nM" of 
the resrJution havinr, presented a report charginc, the uvdersiqnid 
luith corrupt misconduct as a member, and recommending hi^ expul- 
sion he begs leave to submit some observations ujmi that report, and 
the statem.ents of ivitnesses on luhich it Is based : i^^^^ 

Two cliarges are made against Mr. Gilbert hy the committee- 
1 . That he chc agree with F. F. C. Triplett to procure the passage 
Ot a resolution or bill through the i)reseiit Congress for the purchase 
by Congress ot certain copies of the hook of the said Triplett on the 
pension and bounty land laws, in consideration that sai.i Triplett 
should allow him to receive a certain sum of money out of the a.mro- 
priation for the purchase of the book." 

, 2- ''That he did cast his vote on tlie Iowa land hill, depending- 
heretofore hefore this Congress, f,)r a corrupt consideration, consisting 
of seven square miles of land, and some stock given, or to be c-iven" 
to hiiu. ^ ' 

By reference to the original and amended resolution appointino- the 
select committee, it will be seen that they were authorized to investi- 
gate certain charges "that the members of the House had entered 
into corrupt combinations for the purpose of passing and of prevent- 
ing the passage of certain measures during the present Con<rress " 

ihe questions then arise, in the outset, what jurisdiction had the 
committee to prefer the charges they have presented, and what juris- 
diction can the House exercise even if the charges were true"'^ 

I. AMiateyer power the House might have to inquire into the mo- 
tives for which individual members "cast their vote" uiion the [owa 
land hill, none was entrusted by the House to this committee They 
wereselected to inquire whether " members had entered into corrupt 
combinattons ior the purpose of passing or preventing the passa4 
ot measures hefore Congress." ° 

Whatever might be the offence of an individual member or the 
corrupt consideration that influenced his vote, was a matter entirely 
distinct from the charges that prompted tlie investigation, an<l was 
entirely Lcyond the power conferred upon the committee 

Again : as to the first charge— the alleged agreement to procure the 
passage of a resolution to purchase Tripiett's hook— it is not even 
pretended that any such measure was ever before the iiresent Con- 
gress. No ppt-tion, bill, or resolution upon the subject was even in- 
troduced. Whether such agreement wouhlbe legitimate or ImnK.ral 
what jurisdiction could be exercised over it by the committee or by the 



House, unless it related to some measure before the House? Until 
some such measure came before the House, some overt act done in the 
House, and pursuant to the agreement, or some effort made, as a 
member, to carry it into effect, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the 
House. If any other view be taken, where is the limit of jurisdiction 
over the agreements or conduct of members? It is submitted that no 
principle, no precedent, or authority has been or can be shown by the 
committee to justify the jurisdiction they have themselves exercised 
and invoke from the House upon a subject that never was before that 
body. 

It is submitted that a due regard to parliamentary law, to common 
justice, and a decent respect to the rights, the character, and feelings of 
a fellow-member, required the committee to submit the question of 
jurisdiction to the consideration and judgment of the House before 
they preferred such a charge, excited prejudice against him, and affixed 
a stigma to his name. 

II. The committee having disregarded these considerations, and 
made a defamatory report against a member of tlie House, it becomes 
necessary briefly to examine the grounds on which they profess to rest 
their accusation. " The testimony of ^u'o witnesses," says the re])ort, 
"relates to that member." In regard to this testimony, as it is 
called, it will be observed, 1st. That it was taken by the committee 
ex-parte, without notice to the accused, behind his hack, and was 
thirteen days in possession of the committee before any information of 
it was given to the party. The record shows that Sweeney and Trip- 
lett were examined on the 16th of January. — (Koport, pp. 55, 66.) 
On the 29th of January, Mr. Gilbert was informed by a note fi'om the 
chairman that •' certain testimony (a copy thereof being i'urnished) 
was given before the committee, in which liis 'name appears."' But 
-what" view was taken by the committee of that testimony, whether it 
was regarded as within the scope of their inquiry, whether it would 
be the foundation of any charge against him, or would be acted upon 
by them, was not only undisclosed, but carefully concealed from the 
party until the report was read in the House. For the record shows 
(page 80) that an anxious and distinct application being made to 
know whether they regarded Sweeney's testimony as " of sufficient 
importance to justify further proceedings so far as he was concerned," 
in order that he might prepare his defence, he was informed that the 
committee would not "intimate any opinion" — "that he must himself 
be the judge of the ?!rt/(»'e, exteii, and scope of his defence." Thus 
accused in the dark, until the moment when the report was read, he 
was left without any intimation of the nature, extent, and scope of de- 
fence that might be requisite. 

It may be said, indeed, that lie had a copy of the testimony. But 
when tlie resolution of the House limited the jurisdiction of the com- 
mittee to "■comhinaiions of members ibr the purpose of passing, or 
preventing the passage, of measures before Congress," how was he to 
know that his alleged conduct in regard to a measure never before 
Congress, or that the consideration for which his individual vote was 
cast on the Iowa bill, was to be the subject of specific charges against 
him by the commitee — that these were embraced within the nature. 



extent and scope of the reqmml defence? In former cases, the 
conduct ot individual members named in the resolution, ov relatin- to 
part.cu ar specihed transactions, have been the subject of innuTry 
but in the whole range of parliamentary proceedings no instance par- 
allel to the action of tins committee can be found 

fn \V" r--if *V'"' "'^''^ '° ^!''' '^i'"''^' *'^'"»^ " the committee tendered 
to Mr. Gilber an opportunity to confront the witnesses whose testi- 
mony related to him, and to have them subject to examination in his 
presence, but this was declined by him." But when was this - ten- 
der made. ^ The record shows that it was not until the 3d day of 
February. But on the IGth, Uth, and 20th of Januarv, the wit- 
nesses were before the committee without anv notice to the partv of 
what was going on against him, and not untilYourteen days after'the 
testimony u'as closed, when the last arrow was discharged, and when 
he commitee acknowledged they had no "testimony in reserve" 
they offered him the slim chance of recalling Sweeney and Trinlett • 
refusing however to let him know to what point he should direct his 
examination, or what was the nature, extent, and scope of needful 
cletonce. ' 

Under these circumstances it is submitted that in no form of pro- 
cedure can the statements, of these witnesses have any character as 
evidence against him. 

IV. The po,sition in which the witnesses stand, the nature of their 
statements, and the manner of their examination bv the committee are 
also worthy of notice. " ' 

The only two witnesses are Sweeney and Triplect, who stand bv their 
own confession, in the position of acknowledged accomplices of each 
other .s guilt, and who seek to connect Mr. Gilbert with themselves in 
their offence, thereby to escape the consequence of their own admitted 
acts. They are uncorroborated by a single witness, or a single fact 
s ated by any other person; and the shallow effort of the committee to 
strengthen their statement by their orrohoration of each other, would 
excite a smile If It were not done for the grave purpo.se of affixing a 
guiltv stain ni.on a fellow member. The testimony of parties wliose 
"'^;!J •?»'' IS manifest, has never been held, even in slight matters 
sufficient evKlenceto establish the guilt of another, uules.s corroborated 
by some honest witness, or some fiict outside of their own testimony • 
no concurrence betioeen themselves is adequate for tiiat purno.se The 
allegation of the committee that there is a " substantial concurrence " 
will hereafter be sliown to be incorrect. 

V. The statements of these persons, moreover, consist oi conversations 
unaccompanied and uncorroborated by any act; aclass of evidence justly 
characterized by a distinguished judge of the Supreme Court, "as the 
most doubtful and suspicious of all proof, seldom correctly remem- 
bered or truly stated easily and almost always misrepresented. "- 
2 W all.ce.) J or is this all ; for the record shows, page 57, that the 
chief witness, Sweeney, does not pretend to remember the details of 
the conversation on which the whole charge rests ; that he was not 
even required to state them ; but that the committee, acting behind 
the back of the member, called for Sweeney's ^' impression, "^uu\ lent 



liim tlieir aid by leading questions that would not be tolerated m 
any court of justice. 

For example: the first and only serious charge is the contract with 
Triplett, whicli was at first intimated to be in writing. But when 
the contract was called for, Sweeney acknowledged it was in his oivn 
name, and when produced, it was ibund to be an agreement between 
Triplett and Sweeney alone, or rather an order by Triplett, on the 
Clerk of the House, in favor of Sweeney, in which Gilbert's name is 
not even mentioned. — (Report, p. 56.) In order to connect Mr. Gilbert 
with the transaction, it was necessary to violate the plainest law of evi- 
dence hy parole 2)y oof , contradicting and explaining the written docu- 
ment, allow Sweeney to swear his own name off the writing, and put 
on Gilbert's. In this predicament Sweeney stated that the writing 
was not the contract, but that the contract was verbal, and made in his 
presence, between Gilbert and Triplett. — (Report, page 56.) Being 
asked to state the conversation between Gilbert and Triplett, on which 
the whole case turned, he says: "I cannot remember the details of the 
conversation." — (Report, page 57.) Being then asked to give the 
''general puiyort," he answers : "Iioould not pretc7i(l to give the lan- 
guage used on that occasion. I do not hioiv that I can give EVEN THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THEIR TALK." 

Able to give neither the details of the conversation , nor the language, 
nor its general purport, nor even its substance, this question is then 
propounded: " By Mr. Orr. What was ?/o«rH??pres6W)i:^" — (lieport, p. 
57.) Thus turned loose into the boundless and rmchecked field of 
imjyressions, it would seem to be an easy matter for a witness of 
Sweeney's character to esfablisli any point the committee desired ; 
but at almost every step he needed and was lent the aid of leading 
questions, for the very answer as to his impression whether the rate 
to be paid was $1 35 per copy, and the sum $7,500, is qualified by 
the remarkable exjircssions, " / may be mi.staJce7i in saying tliat he 
was to give $7,500 if tlie book was ]iut in at $1 35. It may have com- 
menced at $1 40, at $8,000. 1 think I could fgii7-e if up so as to speak 
precisely ; but my vnpression is, that it was $7,500 for $1 35 per copy, 
and $500 for every five cents per copy beyond that sum." — {Becord, 
p. 77.) At tliis juncture, unable to specify thecontract by language, 
details, purpoi't, substance, or impression — for his im])ressions contra- 
dicted each otlier — unable even to " figure it up," he is helped out by 
the suggestion of a "graduated scale," and seizes upon it with alacrity. 

" By Mr. Orr. It was a graduated scale contract tlien?" 

"Witness. Precisely." * * * 

But this was not free from difficulty, for the writing was for a 
specific sum — was no "graduated .scale contract;" so that, seeing 
danger aliead, the witness goes on to say : " Then there was a certain 
sum which he agreed to pay beyond that ;" "I think it was the ex- 
pectation, &c. I think he was to pay at the rate I have stated, &c. 
I could not speak with accuracy, hoivever, as to the figures, iviihout 
making a calcidation." Pausing here, let any candid man notice 
this proceeding. The committee were dealing behind a member's 
back witli a matter that involved his dearest rights as a member, a 
citizen, and a man. Tliey were inquiring in his absence as to his guilt 
or innocence of a charge which, if true, in their view warranted ex- 



pulsion. They had belbre them a witness to establish that charge. 
The question was, whether there was a contract between Gilbert and 
Triplett, as the witness had sworn? The writing he produced 
showed the contract was his own, and not Gilbert's. The witness 
then undertook to establish by conversation a verbal contract , different 
from the writing. Charged, as the committee were, with the honor 
of a member and the duty of justice to a man, by assuming an exam- 
ination behind his back, in what court would such a leading examin- 
ation have been allowed ? 

But to constitute the contract, there must ha\c been a sum to be 
paid, and a person to receive it. As to the sum, we have seen that 
neither "purport, " "impressions," "figures," nor "graduated scale" 
would arrive at any certainty, and the committee have not even ven- 
tured to specify any sum, although an essential element of the contract, 
if any existed. How is it as to the jier.soji who was to be paid ? On 
page oT), near the top of the page, it will be seen that tlie witness says 
"■there teas sorne misunderstanding , as I understood, as to whom the 
money was to be paid." The payment specified in the writing was 
to be made to Sweeney alone. 

VI. On page 57, near the bottom of tlie page, it will be seen that 
the committee having failed, even by the mode they adopted, to as- 
certain what sum was to be paid, directed their attention to the person 
who was to receive the money. The writing showed no connexion 
•with Gilbert ; and having asked whether any resolution had been 
offered, which was answered in the negative, this question, if it can 
be so called, was immediately proi)ounded : 

" By ilr. Orr. You were, then, to pay over this money to Mr. Gilbert, 
if the resolution passed?" But the witness, not yet prepared to fol- 
low this lead, answered : "There was something said about negotiating 
the jjaper, if the resolution passed." 

" By the Chairman. Who was to have the avails of it? 

" Witness. I have stated in my exjdanation who the bargain was 
made between. 1 do not know that I was instructed, in so many 
words, to pay the money to anybody." But it being necessary, in 
the view of the committee, to implicate Mr. Gilbert, the witness was 
again led to the charge that was wanted : 

" Bv r>Ir. Orr. Then it was the nnderstan-intj that it was to be paid 
t(i Mr.Gilbert by you !" Placed on the safe ground of understanding, 
the lead was thus promjjtly followed : 

" Witness. That was my understanding at tiie interview to wliich 
I have referred." But he adds : " As I have stated, I was not called 
on afterwards to ])ay it to anybody." (Page 57.) 

With such a witness, and such a course of examination by a secret 
committee behind his back, what mend)er of Congress is safe from 
im)mtation? 

The attention of the House is directed to what took place a little 
further on, at page 58. Seeking for the implication of other members, 
the witness is asked by Mr. Orr for conversations between Mr. Gilbert 
and other members as to tlieir i>articipation in this transaction, with 
the proper caution in this instance that " I only in that ask lor your 
personal knowledge." Thus restrained, the honor of other members 
■was saved only by that precaution, as Mr. Gilbert's might have been, 



if, as common justice required, the same caution had been used towards 
him, for the witness answers — 

" Witness. My impreftsion is very strong that other persons did 
have an interest in it, but I cannot certainly answer the question ; 
for, although I have inferred that other members were interested, I 
may have drawn the inference erroneously, &c." 

Now if the same rule had been applied to others, and this witness 
called upon, as he was in respect to Mr. Gilbert, for his " impres- 
sions" and his "inferences, although they might be erroneous," who 
would have escaped ? And why were all the rules of evidence and 
common justice violated in or^ler to strike down one member rather 
than another? If one inquisition may select its victims, why may 
not another do the same? 

VII. To pursue the examination and point out all its violations of 
justice and law would require too mucli time. But one thing is too 
remarkable to be passed over. By what means the committee under- 
took to establish their first charge has already been seen. Having 
exhausted the "impressions," tliougbts, "figures," and "under- 
standings" of the witness on the first point, they proceeded, on page 
59 of the report, to make some enquiry touching the subject of the 
second charge. After some questions had been propoumled by Mr. 
Orr, the answers to which in no degree implicated Mr. Gilbert, or 
any one else^ the witness having intimated that he could not crimi- 
nate any one but Mr. Gilbert, he is thus encouraged — 

"By Mr. Warner. It is due to other witnesses icho have testified before 
us that their testimony should he corroborated, and therefore loe ash you 
the question." — {Report, page 60.) 

Now, this examination was on the 16tb of January. The journal 
of the committee shows that they met for the first time on the 12th 
of January, and appointed a clerk. — {Report, page 40.) That they 
again met on the 14th and examined Henry J. Raymond, and on the 
15th examined James W. Simonton. Sweeney was the next witness. 
Raymond and Simonton then were the only witnesses who had been 
examined. They were the persons to whom it was " due that their 
testimony should be corroborated," viz: the writer ot the charge 
against members of Congress and its publisher. But was that the 
authority delegated to this committee by the House ? Was it not 
their only duty, by fair means and legal evidence, to seek the truth 
without regard to whomsoever might be "corroborated '" or contra- 
dicted ? And when did it ever before occur in a judicial investiga- 
tion that a flag was held out to a witness to notify him that others 
had gone befnre in the path of accu.satioti, in which he might safely 
follow? That " therefore" the question was asked? And does not 
this statement, appearing upon tlieir own record, aftbrd a clue to the 
extraordinary conduct of the committee in violating the rules of evi- 
dence and the principles of justice towards a member ? A calumnious 
charge indiscriminately against members of Congress, published in a 
widely circulated journal, the testimony of its authors failing to es- 
tablish its truth, they required "corroboration." But the undersigned 
solemnly protests against this effort to sacrifice him in order to cor- 



roborate the assailants of Congress. 



And in this connexion, it cannot fail to be observed tliit lintb 
Sweeny and Tnplett seem, like the comniittee, to ons de it S 
special mission in this case to " corroborate" those who had ..one be- 
fore them in charging; corruption upon Congress, for both sCar to 
ang'sf ''''" "'^'""" *'^^ ^^'''^ '^ '^^ general r^^^ilTtion of 

VIII. How such an intimation as was given to Sweeny bv Mr Warner 
would operate upon "a vindictive and not over scrupubus man a 
the commit ee admit Sweeny to be, can readily be understood' and 
It accounts ior his extraordinary and incredible\story that a raembe 
ot Congress voluntarily should in the public streets boast to a other 
^^lhout motive or pledge of secrecy, tliat he had received '^seven Care 
miles ot land and some stock" for his single vote for a biron w idi 
only o9 members voted against its passage! 

The means by whicli the committee extracted from Sweenv tliP -^n 
cusatory material npon the first charge (evidence i? cannot le eilecri 
has already been considered. And here is revealed, bv tlie dec ara 
ton of one ot the committee, in open session, to a witness on tie 
stand, the reason why they sought tbr the oth<;r charge Jit is i? 
not incumbent on the committee to explain what conoboration was 
needed (or the witnesses " who bave testified before ?" WheeTs their 
evidence.'' <vncie is meir 

Xc .such previous testimony appears on the record ' 
A witness npon the stand, under secret examination, evidentlv de 
s.rous, but he.s,tating to accuse, is told by his exaniine ,'t at -'it is" 
due to other witnesses who have testified before ns tliat tlieir testimony 
should be co,Toi,>r«/e<Z.' -(Report, p. 60.) What is the m port of 
this ob.servation to the witness immediately after his own hint ha he 
can implicate souie one? Is it not an imprtident and .lan^erousfn i- 
niat.oii to him-hrst, that the committee «6'«// to stren<.then a in 
•sat.on, and ^c^ll credit the accuser ; second, that he ,J^ 5y IVcus " 
because others have already done so ; and as he will co/roboate hem 
so they will corroborate h ni ? Does it not also si-rnitV tl.af +i ' 

mittee, losing sight of the limited aut loi Vaml re^ZoL We dnnT" 
trusted to them by the House, had become, Is it Ve^r^e p oS f, ^J 
agents of the editor and correspondent of 'the New York T mJ an f 
in anxiety o " corroborate" the wholesale traducers of Congress for 
got justice to members of Congress ? ^"oit-ss, loi- 

IX. The story of Sweeny, however, is incredible in itself and stnnd« 
by the confession of the committee, ".solitarv and alon ' Tu4i ly twc^ 
witnesses against Mr. Gilbert were Triplet and Sweeney a nd rfm 

of land (4,480 acres,; worth, at government price, over 811 000 v re 
gn-en for one vote, the land must have had some loc°U on-t'S mnst 

teo iVsr "wiK^e'tT' "•' ^:r'i '^r -r^"- ^« ^'^•^^«- «uch rbru. 

tco IS gitt. Where then is the land, and who gave it? Everv foot 

?ra :3 tcfSr ri f 'n 'T '""' '-''^ ^"' ''' *''-^"'J- None h:7beea 
traced to Mr. Gilbert by the committee. They had befbro them Mr 

Chase, the very person named as the bestower of the -'ift and m 

positively denies the whole charge. But the laborious paU by .ih 

the committee arrived at the ridiculous story of Sweeney and he 



xnannor in which he trifled and amused l"--;;.;''^;!;^! '\rrne' 
of notice It appears from the report (pa-e^GO) that aitei _ i\i . ^v arner 
had held out thJ flag to the witness, Mr. Orr took lum m hand, and 
after an examination of a page and a half extrac ed nothing^ On 
pafe fil Mr. Warner took Irim, but soon relmqmshed ^mi to Mr 
fcis who immediately relinquished him to Mr. Ritchie^ He tried 
Sm n vain for another'page and a half, and gave h™ v^Mr Orr- 
Davis who again failed. Mr. Orr then complains "By Mi. Orr 
?tMnk you put yourself in an awkward 1--^-;^^^ J^^TdHv^' 
are taking, especially when you say y?^ ;\77 .^'^^ ;:'/? L'w tiey 

s:d£!?T^^t^^w::ir^^^s:iiS^^^ 

U n resmned the task, and at last the witness, taking l-ir opinion 

^<°iewT aho^S Fo'^r-td-a-half street," for its time " lat-n tl^ 
Pven n<r " and for its accompaniment " a glass of soda water, and it 
<^vymursu prised-' the witness, so much so that he went home 
and I'enw ed to^u'. fanuly that " I thought it very strange t^iat he 
should have placed himself in that position. '-Report, p. G4. The land 
Sno locaJion, he did not know how the ^^'S Lwl's M ' 
hut the name of the negotiator was an ^^7"^'^'^^'"/* !-;^ \^e 'ansac- 
Chase a witness hefore the committee, who proved that the transac 

*^l'^UrSeS^SS;.ns, the testimony of Sweeney is dismissed 

wiUi' the single remark, that if a witness was ever successfully impeach- 

dn his general character, and his character for truth and veraci y 

by genera'reputation and particular- facts, J^-^1.1 ; J^'J^^^t er- 
n^nn- nnd if anything be wanting to show the House the utter pei 
^ershm of the testimony by the committee, it will be found by read- 
[nTtheirstatmenras^.; Sweeney's character, and the evidence of 
mnelchmen It is true, some witnesses held his character good and 
3d believe him ; and so it is always. Nothing is more extraor- 
Zary than hat aW' man, however base, cannot find some one who 
win bel eve him if he swears to an evil story against another. But 
3 on fie witnesses of high personal character, great intelligence 
am uiQue i ned integrifyr come from a man's home and swears tha 
i?f "eXl c racter f. had, that Ms character for truth and veracity 
S &arf /'if r^^'^"?'^ ^ot helieve him on oa^A-and upon a cros - 
^aSaSon sh^w that by his former ^-nds and benetactor , k 
Ti,=tir, T Biitterfield, late Commissioner of the i.and umce, anu 
otie s by hi^ partnei's in business, by those who have had no dis- 
pute or co'ntrovLsy, political or otherwise ^flX7t^:i^rieT^' 
Lv«an<ihe i^rec-ardedin hs own neighborhood as rotten-neaneu, 
^'i^Z^^ r^^^oherons," -ly^^," "doe-tful,' "revengeful 
'Mivnocr itical ' "false," and "dishonest," there is in the character of 
suclfa nmn Bothing to iustify faith or credit in any story, ho^ 
3 obable in i"self, luuch less when the story comes as Sweeney s came 
nnd is such as he tells. The committee, moreover, are constrained 
to coSe^^taThe is'" vindictive when provoked, and not over scrupul- 
ous in his measures of revenge."— (i?e/>or<, page 8.) 



XI. The time already occupied forbids, and, indeed, it is unneces- 
sary, to make much remark as to the remaining witness, Triplett, for 
the case will he found to rest entirely upon Sweeny's shoulders. With 
a book that he wanted Congress to buy, it appears from his own state 
ment that Triplett, starting out witli the notion that '^nobody who 
knows the organization of Congress expects to carry anything through 
it merely by love of justice," he was introduced by Sweeny to Mr. 
Gilbert, and upon that introduction some conversation took place in 
respect to the book and the price at which it could be furnished ; Trip- 
lett mentioning the price he would take, and that he did not care what 
became of the balance. It appears that Sweeny was engaged in lob- 
bying claims, and some time after this interview Triplett gave to him 
the order upon the clerk of the House that has been mentioned. No 
resolution to purchase the book ever passed, nor was one ever offered. 
He states that Mr. Gilbert never asked ior the order. He, there- 
fore, had no more than Sweeny's word that any member of Congress 
was interested in it. Sweeny ivas thex>arty who came to him originally 
upon the suhject — page 69. He did not know who was to receive the 
money, " he did not care about inquiring who was to receive it." But 
as his knowledge failed to show any guilt, his impressions were in- 
voked. 

" By Mr. Orr. Was it ijour impression, when Mr. Sweeny made ap- 
plication to you for the writing, that it was made in consequence of 
anything that had passed between him and the member ; in other 
words, that his application was based upon an interview with the 
member ? 

"Witness. That was ray impression, thoiu/h the member never told 
me so. The truth is, Mr. Sweeny came to me originally u^mn the sub- 
ject," d'c. — Report, p. 69. 

So that Triplett' s ^^impressions" from Sweeny's stories are all tliat 
were derived from this witness by the committee ! 

From the beginning to the end, the charge rests solely upon Sweeney's 
uncorroborated story, so far as there is any guilt to be imputed. 

XII. From the sources that have been mentioned, and by the means 
referred to, the committee have derived their charge. That, standing 
alone, it is wholly unsupported by anything worthy of the name of evi- 
dence, must be plain to every candid mind. But when notiiied of their 
proceedings, Mr. Gilbert appeared before the committee, and, under 
oath, put in his answer to the defamatory story; that answer, full and 
complete, alleges, among other things, that " no agreement was made 
with me by Mr. Triplett, Sweeney, or any other person, whereby I was 
to have or did expect to liave any benefit from tlie passage of the reso- 
lution. I never knew of or had the remotest idea of tlie existence of 
the writing or order until after it was produced before the committee." 
And in regard to the Iowa land bill, " I have to say, that I have not 
tlie slightest recollection of ever having had a conversation witli 
Sweeny on the subject, and IJcnoiu that I never told him that 1 was 
to have seven square miles or any otlier quantity of land for my vote. 
I never stipulated for any quantity of land or other pecuniary cou.side- 
ration for my vote for that or any other hill." 



' ' I have voted upon all the measnres before OoTigress since I liave 
been ^ member according to the dictates of ray judgment, and not 
from fiiiy motives of personal gain."' — Pi/'nr.ri.^ p. 79. 

The record shows (p. 76) that the committee decided they would 
not regard him as a witness. But from that decision he appeals 
to the better judgment of the House, and claims, that in cases 
of this nature tlie statement of a member under oath is evidence in 
his favor of the highest character, that cannot be overcome but by the 
testimony of two unimpeached witnesses. This he is advised is the 
])arliamentary law, and without this wholesome rule a member of 
Congress would be at the mercy of any scoundrel that infests the 
halls of Congress. His statement is, moieover, confirmed by the 
testimony of Mr. Welcli and Mr. Chase, both of whom swear to facts 
wholly inconsistent with the stories of Sweeney. Justice to himself 
would require some other points in the report and proceedings of the 
committee to be noticed, were it not that the defence has already ex- 
tended beyond the limits he desired. This necessity has been im- 
posed upon him by the irregular and unfair procedure to which he 
has been subjected. But, without further remark, he submits his 
case to the House. If the charge be entertained he demands an open 
trial by the House, where justice will be administered according to 
legal evidence, and in legal form, and where his rights as a man and 
his privileges as a member will be respected. Protesting his inno- 
cence in fact and intention in every respect wherewith he stands 
charged, with an apology for the length of these remarks, he cheer- 
fully abides the judgment of the House. 

W. A. GILBERT. 




89 W 



"'^'*' % ^^ '^' 





^ >-. -r-^; 



*• ^^'\ \1^'° /\, '"^W/ ,'^''"\ ^^^^.^ ^^- 

























0" ♦'. 











^^^o 




n~.fl 











^°-^^ 




^** ' • • t ^v ^ 


















^°-^<^^ 




'• V ,o^.i;^,>, ..^\.^i',V /.•;.'^'«'^o. 





-^-^ * 



K^*^ 



• ' ^ • <^ 



v>\M-^' 






















0' ^^ *.,,.• ^v 



>.^/ 









..^' 



vv'^;ri,(;(>^i-iSi^;NCi'' 






* '^^xMl'\,' ''^ 






.0 






.ivjHc, PA 












0' .- 



•^^0^ 
^•1°^ 



v' 



aiSC-i'i 



^°^. '••■' 



